Balamand

[Blenderx]

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/ch_orthodox_docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19930624_lebanon_en.html

1. While the inviolable freedom of persons and their obligation to follow the requirements of their conscience remain secure, in the search for re-establishing unity there is no question of conversion of people from one Church to the other in order to ensure their salvation.

1. Pastoral activity in the Catholic Church, Latin as well as Oriental, no longer aims at having the faithful of one Church pass over to the other; that is to say, it no longer aims at proselytizing among the Orthodox.

I’m curious about these statements taken from the Balamand dialogue, which has been fully accepted by Rome. So Orthodox are not expected to join the Eastern Catholic Churches to be in communion? And what of Catholics who convert to Orthodox? Are they not still considered to have been lost?

 

[chimo]

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/ch_orthodox_docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_19930624_lebanon_en.html

I’m curious about these statements taken from the Balamand dialogue, which has been fully accepted by Rome. So Orthodox are not expected to join the Eastern Catholic Churches to be in communion? And what of Catholics who convert to Orthodox? Are they not still considered to have been lost?

I think the Church of Rome is coming to understand the valuable ministry and witness of Eastern Orthodoxy as been part of the whole Church. It is not the attitude of the Church of Rome to seek unity with the Orthodox as it was done in the past. The basis of unity must come through if you like under a different model. The Balamand statement confers Rome’s acknowledgement to seek unity under a different model.

 

[Blenderx]

I think the Church of Rome is coming to understand the valuable ministry and witness of Eastern Orthodoxy as been part of the whole Church. It is not the attitude of the Church of Rome to seek unity with the Orthodox as it was done in the past. The basis of unity must come through if you like under a different model. The Balamand statement confers Rome’s acknowledgement to seek unity under a different model.

I think what I find confusing is how this change is supposed to work at an individual level and regarding the individual’s salvation when they choose to go to one or the other church.

 

[chimo]

I think what I find confusing is how this change is supposed to work at an individual level and regarding the individual’s salvation when they choose to go to one or the other church.

The Church of Rome is now discovering they are not alone in this world. The renown Father Robert Taft who is an Eastern Catholic is working with the Eastern Orthodox based on this “other model”. This Catholic priest is an incredible authority of the Eastern rite liturgies so his contribution in understanding the Eastern Churches is invaluable. The consensus is this. The Church of Rome must realize they are not the only “Catholic” Church in this world. Father Robert Taft has acknowledge this. The Eastern Orthodox Church is a Church that has been long misunderstood by most Catholics. This understanding between the two great Churches is just coming to its own in recent years. The problem with Catholicism is the lay people are not ready to accept what the Eastern Orthodox Church can be for them. This can be the same for the Orthodox to know what the Catholic Church can be for them. It must come through many contacts, dialogues, witnessing and just general acceptance for each other. The misunderstandings of the past must slowly break through with people who will come to accept that the model of the Church must include both the Eastern Orthodox and the Catholic Church. What this important unity and model will involve will not be the one that was searched for from the past. There is too much lack of knowledge of who the other is that has given us this stalemate. In consideration to your question it is when the Catholic becomes more informed on Eastern Orthodoxy and when the Eastern Orthodox becomes more informed to Catholicism that this other model will bring forth these Churches into unity.

 

[Augustine]

And what of Catholics who convert to Orthodox? Are they not still considered to have been lost?

Have they ever been considered lost for becoming Orthodox? They become schismatics by joining another Apostolic Church separated from the the successor of St. Peter, yet with access to all the Sacraments and thus with legitimate shepherds. Just meaning to understand it…

Pax Christi

 

[Blenderx]

Have they ever been considered lost for becoming Orthodox? They become schismatics by joining another Apostolic Church separated from the the successor of St. Peter, yet with access to all the Sacraments and thus with legitimate shepherds. Just meaning to understand it…

Pax Christi

Well this is what I’m trying to understand. From the way many or at least some speak, a schismatic is condemned.

 

[Vico]

I think what I find confusing is how this change is supposed to work at an individual level and regarding the individual’s salvation when they choose to go to one or the other church.

If the Church “no longer aims at having the faithful of one Church pass over to the other” then Catholics should not go over to Orthodox or Orthodox to Catholic. It is acceptable due to invincible ignorance: the Orthodox do not know the Catholic church to hold to the entire faith, and the Catholics do not know the Orthodox to hold to the entire faith.

 

[Blenderx]

If the Church “no longer aims at having the faithful of one Church pass over to the other” then Catholics should not go over to Orthodox or Orthodox to Catholic. It is acceptable due to invincible ignorance: the Orthodox do not know the Catholic church to hold to the entire faith, and the Catholics do not know the Orthodox to hold to the entire faith.

The documents states “there is no question” it is clearly I think not a matter of invincible ignorance.

 

[Vico]

The documents states “there is no question” it is clearly I think not a matter of invincible ignorance.

Originally Posted by Blenderx forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
I think what I find confusing is how this change is supposed to work at an individual level and regarding the individual’s salvation when they choose to go to one or the other church.

They who have invincible ignorance are not culpable, so it is a matter of the individual’s salvation. There is a difference in faith.

Here is that whole item, showing that there is an effort to achieve accord on the content of the faith.
15. While the inviolable freedom of persons and their obligation to follow the requirements of their conscience remain secure, in the search for re-establishing unity there is no question of conversion of people from one Church to the other in order to ensure their salvation. There is a question of achieving together the will of Christ for his own and the design of God for his Church by means of a common quest by the Churches for a full accord on the content of the faith and its implications. This effort is being carried on in the current theological dialogue. The present document is a necessary stage in this dialogue.

 

[Blenderx]

Originally Posted by Blenderx forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_khaki/viewpost.gif
I think what I find confusing is how this change is supposed to work at an individual level and regarding the individual’s salvation when they choose to go to one or the other church.

They who have invincible ignorance are not culpable, so it is a matter of the individual’s salvation. There is a difference in faith.

Here is that whole item, showing that there is an effort to achieve accord on the content of the faith.
15. While the inviolable freedom of persons and their obligation to follow the requirements of their conscience remain secure, in the search for re-establishing unity there is no question of conversion of people from one Church to the other in order to ensure their salvation. There is a question of achieving together the will of Christ for his own and the design of God for his Church by means of a common quest by the Churches for a full accord on the content of the faith and its implications. This effort is being carried on in the current theological dialogue. The present document is a necessary stage in this dialogue.

Yes, I’m not convinced that that is what that is saying. Because we can say the same about the Protestants as far as their consciences go, but we would never say that there is ‘no question’ of conversion to ‘ensure’ their salvation and we would never admit Protestants to Communion without conversion, as we do Orthodox. And then suppose an Orthodox came to see that the fullness of the faith exists harmoniously in both Orthodoxy and Catholicism, but chooses to remain Orthodox? Then certainly the idea of invincible ignorance no longer applies.

 

[Vico]

Yes, I’m not convinced that that is what that is saying. Because we can say the same about the Protestants as far as their consciences go, but we would never say that there is ‘no question’ of conversion to ‘ensure’ their salvation and we would never admit Protestants to Communion without conversion, as we do Orthodox. And then suppose an Orthodox came to see that the fullness of the faith exists harmoniously in both Orthodoxy and Catholicism, but chooses to remain Orthodox? Then certainly the idea of invincible ignorance no longer applies.

There seems to be no way for Orthodox to accept all the Catholic dogmas, because some are not acceptable to the Orthodox faith. We also know from the Catholic documents that we are to avoid the evil of indifferentism.

If “protestants” hold a Catholic belief in the Eucharist, they are sometimes admitted. Also to confession.

 

[Blenderx]

There seems to be no way for Orthodox to accept all the Catholic dogmas, because some are not acceptable to the Orthodox faith. We also know from the Catholic documents that we are to avoid the evil of indifferentism.

If “protestants” hold a Catholic belief in the Eucharist, they are sometimes admitted. Also to confession.

Indifferentism… yes, that’s why those statements confused me.

I thought the argument has been that, properly understood, there is nothing in Catholic dogma that is contrary to Orthodoxy? Or we wouldn’t have Eastern Catholics who term themselves ‘Orthodox in communion with Rome’.

Thank you for your patience with me.

 

[Vico]

Indifferentism… yes, that’s why those statements confused me.

I thought the argument has been that, properly understood, there is nothing in Catholic dogma that is contrary to Orthodoxy? Or we wouldn’t have Eastern Catholics who term themselves ‘Orthodox in communion with Rome’.

Thank you for your patience with me.

Universal jurisdiction is one of the Catholic dogmas that is not assented to by Orthodox churches (Eastern, Oriental, or Church of the East). It is never clear what ‘Orthodox in communion with Rome’ means. All Catholics (Latin and eastern) assent to the same dogmas of faith.

CCEO
Canon 905 - In fulfilling ecumenical work especially through open and frank dialogue and common undertakings with other Christians, due prudence has to be kept avoiding the dangers of false irenicism, indifferentism and immoderate zeal.

 

[Augustine]

Well this is what I’m trying to understand. From the way many or at least some speak, a schismatic is condemned.

As I understand it, someone who was raised an Orthodox or came to know Christianity through an Orthodox Church is a Christian in good standing, if I may say it. However, a Catholic who joins an Orthodox Church is a more serious matter. How serious? I do not know.

I might be tempted to say that apostasy was committed, for joining a Church which denies some Catholic dogmas (or perhaps only one: papal primacy). But even then it’s hard to determine culpability, for being a Catholic doesn’t mean that all of the Church’s dogmas are known by the person.

As for committing schism, separating oneself from the fullness of the Church, I do not know.

Yet, since my understanding is only partial, I’m inclined to err in favor of the person. And if I’m wrong, I accept what the Church teaches.

Pax Christi

 

[Peter_J]

1. Pastoral activity in the Catholic Church, Latin as well as Oriental, no longer aims at having the faithful of one Church pass over to the other; that is to say, it no longer aims at proselytizing among the Orthodox.

To me, the question is not why we no longer seek conversions from Orthodoxy to Catholicism, but why did we used to do so? (In the interest of full disclosure I should add that I don’t think the Orthodox ought to seek conversions from Catholicism to Orthodoxy either.)

 

[Genesis315]

Don’t put too much weight into the Balamand statement. The Balamand statement and other texts like it (e.g. the Joint statement on justification with the Lutherans) are considered part of the work in progress, not the final position of the Church. From what I can tell, the Church has not “fully accepted” it.

As the Balamand document itself notes:
Balamand Statement:

As with all the results of the joint dialogue commissions, this common document belongs to the responsibility of the Commission itself, until the competent organs of the Catholic Church and of the Orthodox Churches express their judgement in regard to it.

The previous Pope also explicitly made this point:
Pope Benedict XVI:

Today, moreover, one of the fundamental questions is the problem of the methods adopted in the various ecumenical dialogues. These too must reflect the priority of faith. Knowing the truth is a right of the conversation partner in every true dialogue. It is a requirement of love for one’s brother or sister. In this sense, it is necessary to face controversial issues courageously, always in a spirit of brotherhood and in reciprocal respect. It is also important to offer a correct interpretation of that order or “hierarchy” which exists in Catholic doctrine, observed in the Decree on Ecumenism, Unitatis Redintegratio (n. 11), which in no way means reducing the deposit of the faith but rather bringing out its internal structure, the organic nature of this unique structure. The study documents produced by the various ecumenical dialogues are very important. These texts cannot be ignored because they are an important, if temporary, fruit of our common reflection developed over the years. Nevertheless their proper significance should be recognized as a contribution offered to the competent Authority of the Church, which alone is called to judge them definitively. To ascribe to these texts a binding or as it were definitive solution to the thorny questions of the dialogues without the proper evaluation of the ecclesial Authority, would ultimately hinder the journey toward full unity in faith.

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2012/january/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20120127_dottrina-fede_en.html

So, for example, the official response of the Church on the Joint Declaration on Justification is here:
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_01081998_off-answer-catholic_en.html
Note, it points out where the joint statement is wrong or problematic and where the Lutheran doctrine is still touched by the anathemas of Trent.

I am unaware if the Balamand Statement was ever given such a response from the Church, but it was certainly contradicted by later interventions from the CDF, such as the note on certain doctrinal elements of evangelization, the CDF note on the use of the term “Sister Churches,” as well as Dominus Iesus, and the note on certain aspects of doctrine about the Church, all issued subsequently by the CDF. Likewise, St. John Paul II’s May 31, 1995 audience, explicitly affirming the formulation of St. Cyprian and explicitly referring to the definitions of Lateran IV, Florence, and Boniface VIII concerning the dogma that outside the Church subject to the Roman Pontiff there is no salvation, also came after it.

Furthermore, the Romanian Greek-Catholic bishops all wrote a letter to the Pope rejecting Balamand, and there was no negative response to that. Neither has anything in the Balamand statement been enforced at all. You can find plenty of Orthodox complaints by priests, etc. on the internet saying Rome and Catholics are ignoring the Balamand statement, and evangelizing, opening new churches, etc. in Orthodox territories without their permission, etc. These actions, rather than being condemned and forbidden, seems to be instead supported by the subsequent interventions.

 

[Vico]

Don’t put too much weight into the Balamand statement. The Balamand statement and other texts like it (e.g. the Joint statement on justification with the Lutherans) are considered part of the work in progress, not the final position of the Church. From what I can tell, the Church has not “fully accepted” it.

As the Balamand document itself notes:

The previous Pope also explicitly made this point:

vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/speeches/2012/january/documents/hf_ben-xvi_spe_20120127_dottrina-fede_en.html

So, for example, the official response of the Church on the Joint Declaration on Justification is here:
vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_01081998_off-answer-catholic_en.html
Note, it points out where the joint statement is wrong or problematic and where the Lutheran doctrine is still touched by the anathemas of Trent.

I am unaware if the Balamand Statement was ever given such a response from the Church, but it was certainly contradicted by later interventions from the CDF, such as the note on certain doctrinal elements of evangelization, the CDF note on the use of the term “Sister Churches,” as well as Dominus Iesus, and the note on certain aspects of doctrine about the Church, all issued subsequently by the CDF. Likewise, St. John Paul II’s May 31, 1995 audience, explicitly affirming the formulation of St. Cyprian and explicitly referring to the definitions of Lateran IV, Florence, and Boniface VIII concerning the dogma that outside the Church subject to the Roman Pontiff there is no salvation, also came after it.

Furthermore, the Romanian Greek-Catholic bishops all wrote a letter to the Pope rejecting Balamand, and there was no negative response to that. Neither has anything in the Balamand statement been enforced at all. You can find plenty of Orthodox complaints by priests, etc. on the internet saying Rome and Catholics are ignoring the Balamand statement, and evangelizing, opening new churches, etc. in Orthodox territories without their permission, etc. These actions, rather than being condemned and forbidden, seems to be instead supported by the subsequent interventions.

In 2000, the statement from Joint international commission for the theological dialogue between the Roman Catholic Church and the Orthodox Church, from Baltimore, was "However, since agreement was not reached on the basic theological concept of uniatism, it was decided not to have a common statement at this time. " This meeting was a continuation from sixth session in Freising (Germany) in 1990 and in its seventh session in Balamand (Lebanon) in 1993.

vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/ch_orthodox_docs/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_20000719_baltimore_en.html

 

[Peter_J]

Don’t put too much weight into the Balamand statement.

I don’t. Agreement between Catholics and Orthodox is a great thing to strive for, but it’s a long difficult road, not like this. (Warning: That link is a rather extreme form of ecumenism, not to mention the fact that it invokes the Pope. Highly impressionable readers shouldn’t click on it.)

 

[Andreas_Hofer]

The portions of Balamand cited by the OP simply don’t cohere well with the Tradition as understood by either Catholic *or *Orthodox.

The Catechism describes both heresy and schism as sins against faith:
“Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.” I think we should be able to stipulate that Orthodox definitions would be close enough to these and that both East and West regard these sins as serious enough to imperil one’s salvation (provided that one is culpable). The Orthodox can correct me if I’m wrong on their end.

So we have a schism acknowledged by both sides (and, though we’re too nice to say it, the Orthodox rejection of defined Catholic dogmas is, by Catholic definition, heresy). So if we agree on the existence of a material schism that is objectively grave matter it is nonsensical to claim that we shouldn’t be trying to rectify it with an eye to the salvation of those individuals on the other side of the schism. This is why voices on both sides of the schism have been raised against the Balamand declaration.

 

[Vico]

The portions of Balamand cited by the OP simply don’t cohere well with the Tradition as understood by either Catholic *or *Orthodox.

The Catechism describes both heresy and schism as sins against faith:
“Heresy is the obstinate post-baptismal denial of some truth which must be believed with divine and catholic faith, or it is likewise an obstinate doubt concerning the same; apostasy is the total repudiation of the Christian faith; schism is the refusal of submission to the Roman Pontiff or of communion with the members of the Church subject to him.” I think we should be able to stipulate that Orthodox definitions would be close enough to these and that both East and West regard these sins as serious enough to imperil one’s salvation (provided that one is culpable). The Orthodox can correct me if I’m wrong on their end.

So we have a schism acknowledged by both sides (and, though we’re too nice to say it, the Orthodox rejection of defined Catholic dogmas is, by Catholic definition, heresy). So if we agree on the existence of a material schism that is objectively grave matter it is nonsensical to claim that we shouldn’t be trying to rectify it with an eye to the salvation of those individuals on the other side of the schism. This is why voices on both sides of the schism have been raised against the Balamand declaration.

It will not be a matter of salvation where invincible ignorance is applicable because the objective sin is not also subjective sin.